This resolution of disapproval of the Congressional Review Act nullifies the Department of the Interior's Stream Protection Rule. With an annual estimated cost of $81 million, according to the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the Stream Protection Rule is another blow to the coal industry, which was a favorite target of the Obama administration. The National Mining Association estimates that rule will lead to billions of dollars in lost revenues to state and local governments, as well as the loss of between 113,000 and 280,000 jobs.

This resolution of disapproval of the Congressional Review Act nullifies the Securities and Exchange Commission's Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers rule. Promulgated under the authority of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank, this rule requires resource extraction issuers to include in annual reports the payment of any entity controlled by the regulated business to foreign governments or the United States government "for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals." The Securities and Exchange Commission projects initial compliance costs between $239 million and $700 million and annual compliance costs between $96 million and $591 million.

An orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Price, who has a lifetime 89 percent score with FreedomWorks, would bring a unique perspective to the Department of Health and Human Services that is desperately needed at a time when America's health care system is facing significant challenges. The Department of Health and Human Services was one of the federal agencies primarily responsible for the implementation of ObamaCare. HHS promulgated or approved rules developed by agencies it oversees, including rules that led to millions of health insurance policy cancellations and so-called “essential benefits” that have increased the cost of health insurance premiums for Americans. While the details of an ObamaCare replacement supported by the House and Senate Republican conferences are yet to be developed and introduced in legislative text, Dr. Price is the ideal individual to lead this effort in the Trump administration.

The Office of Management and Budget is the largest office working in the Executive Office of the President of the United States. As OMB director, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) would play a large role in preparing President Trump’s Budget, as well as evaluating the degree to which agency programs, policies, and procedures follow the president’s policies. With Rep. Mulvaney’s history of serious concern and constructive activity toward reining in Washington’s overspending, this nominee deserves our support to take Washington by the horns and fight for responsible spending levels at the federal level.

The EPA has become the most notorious offender in the unconstitutional fourth branch of government that we know as the regulatory state. It has promulgated rules and regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan, aimed at destroying an entire industry, hurting workers and their families. Under Scott Pruitt's leadership at the EPA, Americans will have safe air and water and protection from government overreach through rules and regulations. Pruitt is a staunch believer in federalism and Article I of the Constitution, which charges the legislative branch with the power to make laws, not executive-level regulatory agencies.

This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act nullifies a the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. This regulation requires federal contractors to disclose decisions on the reporting of violations of federal labor laws and creates paycheck transparency protections for employees of federal contractors. The rule is expected to cost employers $458.3 million in the first year, $413.7 million in the second year, and between $398.5 million and $400 million annually thereafter.

This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress authority to effectively nullify regulations submitted for review by federal agencies within 60 legislative days, would cancel the Department of Education’s Accountability and State Plans Rule. The Department of Education’s Accountability and State Plans Rule implements part of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and leaves open a loophole that federal bureaucrats could exploit to force Common Core on states that haven't implemented the standards. Education officials from several states and local jurisdictions strongly opposed the rule when it was being crafted.

he resolution would prevent the FCC from implementing rules that dictate the way broadband Internet service providers handle their customers’ personal information. S.J.Res. 34 passed the Senate last week by a vote of 50 to 48. Although consumer data privacy is of significant concern to every American, the proper parties should address the issue. In this area, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has historically held authority on the establishment and enforcement of general online privacy rules. Since the FCC can only regulate a portion of the Internet sphere – service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T – other Internet companies, namely websites like Facebook and Google, would escape any stringent data privacy rules enacted by the FCC. Creating more regulation in an uneven fashion would not only benefit certain companies in the industry by creating a clear advantage in digital advertising, it would also fail to achieve any consumer data protection purpose. In order to provide Americans with more robust and clearly defined protective measures, it is important to allow Congress and the FTC to set the rules in this sphere. Enabling other agencies to further restrict only a certain portion of an industry burdens privacy, progress, and business. It is important to move away from the Obama-era, regulatory induced system we have seen grow over the last eight years.

Our activist community drove more than 1.7 million messages to the Senate urging Members to preserve this important seat on the High Court for someone who respects the rule of law and a textual interpretation of the Constitution. With the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, we now have the opportunity to follow through by solidifying the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court. As explained by SCOTUSBlog, “some of the parallels” between Justice Scalia and Judge Gorsuch “can be downright eerie.” Indeed, Judge Gorsuch has the same originalist and textualist approach to the Constitution and narrow application of criminal laws against defendants and support for mens rea, or criminal intent, requirements in federal law in common. The key difference between Justice Scalia and Judge Gorsuch is that Judge Gorsuch has written critically of the Supreme Court’s 1984 "Chevron deference," which requires federal courts to defer to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of “silent or ambiguous” statutes. The Chevron deference has allowed federal bureaucrats to enact law without judicial review, undermining the separation of powers in the Constitution.

The process for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which funds the federal government for the remainder of FY 2017, could not have been worse. This massive, nearly 1,700-page spending measure was negotiated behind closed doors between congressional leadership from both chambers and appropriators. With a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president, this spending bill reflects Obama-era spending levels. The bill annualizes base discretionary spending for FY 2017 at $1.07 trillion. This spending level blows through the spending caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 by $30 billion. The bill spends an additional $106 billion for overseas contingency operations, disaster relief, and other spending, which isn’t counted toward the spending caps. In total, the bill authorizes more than $1.175 trillion in annualized discretionary spending for FY 2017. The bill also falls short of promoting conservative priorities. While the bill does renew the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and does not include funding for ObamaCare’s cost-sharing subsidies, it allocates nearly $296 million to bail out Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program, preserves current spending levels for the Environmental Protection Agency, increases spending for the National Institutes of Health and the National Endowment for the Arts, and provides a bailout for a private sector labor union.

This vote was on the motion to proceed to consideration of H.J.Res. 36, which would have canceled the Bureau of Land Management’s Methane Rule. With annual compliance costs between $114 million and $279 million, the so-called “venting and flaring” rule purports to reduce waste from “reduce the waste of natural gas from mineral leases administered” by the Bureau of Land Management. In reality, the purpose of the rule is to discourage oil and gas production on land overseen by the agency. The Bureau of Land Management estimates annual compliance costs between $114 million and $279 million.

The current authorization expires in December, which means that Congress must reauthorize it by the end of the year. S. 1287 bill would eliminate the need for reauthorization, granting indefinite authority for a program that collects information on, potentially, millions of Americans. Section 702 allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to collect electronic communications by non-citizens of interest to the federal government. Officially, the program is not supposed to target U.S. citizens, but intelligence agencies cast a wide net and often the communications of Americans can be swept up by the surveillance as well. Given the sweeping powers in Section 702 and the potential for misuse, this program should require congressional oversight, which can be used to assess both terrorism and privacy concerns. Granting this surveillance authority indefinitely, as S. 1297 does, limits even further Congress’s ability to oversee this program.

This vote simply allows the Senate to begin debate on the House-passed version of H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act.

This amendment is virtually identical to the 2015 ObamaCare repeal bill – the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, H.R. 3762. This bill passed the Senate by a vote of 52 to 47, with only two unsurprising Republican defections. For more than seven years, Republicans successfully campaigned on ObamaCare repeal. They made floor speeches in support of repeal, and they voted to pass a repeal bill less than two years ago. Grassroots conservative activists are not going to accept excuses if Republicans fail to pass a bill that they have passed once before. The ObamaCare Repeal Reconciliation Act would repeal much of ObamaCare – including the tax and cost sharing subsidies, Medicaid expansion, and the taxes that came with the law – with a two-year delay to pass a replacement. This delay provides more than ample time to reach an agreement on a replacement bill or package. President Donald Trump has indicated that he will sign a 2015-style ObamaCare bill into law. Senate Republicans should do as they did in December 2015 and pass a bill that delivers on their frequent promises to repeal ObamaCare.

The amendment offered by Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would increase the debt limit and fund the federal government through December 8 without any spending or regulatory reforms.

Chairman Pai has served on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since May 2012. Chairman Pai should not only be confirmed for his record of eloquently championing sensible regulation grounded by market principles, but because he also serves as an example of what the American people deserve from officials in Washington. Pai’s efforts, particularly on the debate surrounding Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, demonstrate his commitment to policies that work rather than policies that simply grow the power of government and relevance of his position as a regulator.

This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would reduce discretionary spending by $43 billion.

This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would create reconciliation instructions to repeal and replace ObamaCare, providing a path to follow through on more than seven years of promises after the Senate's failure this year.

It has been more than 30 years since Congress passed fundamental tax reform. Since that time, the tax code has become riddled with carve-outs that benefit politically connected special interests. Today, there are more than 74,000 pages in the tax code. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spent 8.9 billion hours and $409 billion on tax compliance in 2016. Congress has a generational opportunity to reform the tax code by consolidating and lowering tax rates, broadening the tax base, and promoting job creation and international competitiveness for American businesses. This will make the tax code fairer and simplify the filing process, allowing the vast majority of Americans to file their taxes on a postcard. There is no doubt that 2017 has been a frustrating year for conservatives. Failure on fundamental tax reform is not an option. Passage of the FY 2018 budget resolution is the first step in this process. This is a step that the Senate must take.

No one disagrees with the need for assistance for areas recently impacted by disasters. Nevertheless, the concern with the Additional Supplement Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act is that Congress is spending $36.5 billion without any spending offsets. Sadly, some, like Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), are demanding more money, attempting to extort additional funds by blocking a conservative nominee. Currently, the national debt is $20.4 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the projected budget deficit for FY 2017 and FY 2018 is $804 billion and $855 billion, respectively. Congress is only a few years away from the $1+ trillion deficits that Republicans frequently and rightly criticized under President Barack Obama. Long-term budget projections are even more ominous. Unfortunately, Congress continues to kick the can down the road, avoiding difficult decisions.

This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) would cancel the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) arbitration rule. The final rule was published on Regulations.gov on July 19. While the CRA isn’t a panacea, it does provide a means for Congress to act as a check on out-of-control federal agencies. The CFPB’s arbitration rule is, in reality, a giveaway to trial lawyers. The rule ostensibly bans contractual arbitration clauses related to consumer financial products offered by banks and other financial sector firms. This severely limits consumers’ ability to enter into arbitration during disputes. Arbitration is an easier and quicker process for consumers to resolve issues, but lawyers don’t make much money from this process. The rule, however, will encourage trial lawyers to pursue more class-action lawsuits, which take longer and result in smaller payouts to consumers. But class-action lawsuits do bring in big dollars for trial lawyers. Class-action lawsuits can take two to five years to resolve, and the average payment is $32.35 per individual. These class-action suits, for which trial lawyers are paid an average of roughly $1 million, also drive up costs to consumers. By comparison, arbitration typically takes two to five months, with an average payment of thousands of dollars. It’s clear which process truly protects consumers.